What do you think?
Rate this book
The Elephant in the Universe: Our Hundred-Year Search for Dark Matter
An award-winning science journalist details the quest to isolate and understand dark matter--and shows how that search has helped us to understand the universe we inhabit.
When you train a telescope on outer space, you can see luminous galaxies, nebulae, stars, and planets. But if you add all that together, it constitutes only 15 percent of the matter in the universe. Despite decades of research, the nature of the remaining 85 percent is unknown. We call it dark matter.
In The Elephant in the Universe, Govert Schilling explores the fascinating history of the search for dark matter. Evidence for its existence comes from a wealth of astronomical observations. Theories and computer simulations of the evolution of the universe are also suggestive: they can be reconciled with astronomical measurements only if dark matter is a dominant component of nature. Physicists have devised huge, sensitive instruments to search for dark matter, which may be unlike anything else in the cosmos--some unknown elementary particle. Yet so far dark matter has escaped every experiment. Indeed, dark matter is so elusive that some scientists are beginning to suspect there might be something wrong with our theories about gravity or with the current paradigms of cosmology. Schilling interviews both believers and heretics and paints a colorful picture of the history and current status of dark matter research, with astronomers and physicists alike trying to make sense of theory and observation.
Taking a holistic view of dark matter as a problem, an opportunity, and an example of science in action, The Elephant in the Universe is a vivid tale of scientists puzzling their way toward the true nature of the universe.
When you train a telescope on outer space, you can see luminous galaxies, nebulae, stars, and planets. But if you add all that together, it constitutes only 15 percent of the matter in the universe. Despite decades of research, the nature of the remaining 85 percent is unknown. We call it dark matter.
In The Elephant in the Universe, Govert Schilling explores the fascinating history of the search for dark matter. Evidence for its existence comes from a wealth of astronomical observations. Theories and computer simulations of the evolution of the universe are also suggestive: they can be reconciled with astronomical measurements only if dark matter is a dominant component of nature. Physicists have devised huge, sensitive instruments to search for dark matter, which may be unlike anything else in the cosmos--some unknown elementary particle. Yet so far dark matter has escaped every experiment. Indeed, dark matter is so elusive that some scientists are beginning to suspect there might be something wrong with our theories about gravity or with the current paradigms of cosmology. Schilling interviews both believers and heretics and paints a colorful picture of the history and current status of dark matter research, with astronomers and physicists alike trying to make sense of theory and observation.
Taking a holistic view of dark matter as a problem, an opportunity, and an example of science in action, The Elephant in the Universe is a vivid tale of scientists puzzling their way toward the true nature of the universe.
Audiobook
First published March 31, 2022
67 people are currently reading
907 people want to read
About the author
Govert Schilling
115 books43 followersGovert Schilling is freelance wetenschapsjournalist en publicist. Hij schrijft over sterrenkunde en ruimteonderzoek voor kranten en tijdschriften in binnen- en buitenland, o.a. voor de Volkskrant, Eos magazine, Science, New Scientist, Sky & Telescope en BBC Sky at Night. Hij publiceerde tientallen boeken over uiteenlopende sterrenkundige onderwerpen, waarvan sommige zijn vertaald, o.a. in het Engels, Duits en Chinees. Regelmatig geeft hij op radio en tv toelichting op ontwikkelingen in de astronomie. Daarnaast verzorgt hij publiekslezingen en cursussen, en is hij eindredacteur van de populaire website allesoversterrenkunde.nl.
Govert is autodidact op het gebied van de astronomie en de journalistiek. Hij was jarenlang actief in de Jongerenwerkgroep (JWG) voor sterrenkunde, was van 1980 tot 1987 hoofdredacteur van het sterrenkundig tijdschrift Zenit, en was tot 1998 werkzaam als programmaleider bij het Artis Planetarium in Amsterdam.
Voor zijn werk op het gebied van de popularisering van de sterrenkunde ontving Govert diverse prijzen en onderscheidingen, waaronder de Simon Stevin-kijker van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Weer- en Sterrenkunde KNVWS (1989, samen met astronaut Wubbo Ockels), de Eureka-oeuvreprijs van de Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWO (2002) en de David N. Schramm Award van de High-Energy Astrophysics Division van de American Astronomical Society (2014). In 2007 werd planetoïde (10986) Govert naar hem genoemd door de Internationale Astronomische Unie (IAU); in 2021 is hij benoemd tot erelid van deze organisatie.
Govert Schilling is getrouwd, heeft een zoon en een dochter, en woont in Amersfoort.
Govert is autodidact op het gebied van de astronomie en de journalistiek. Hij was jarenlang actief in de Jongerenwerkgroep (JWG) voor sterrenkunde, was van 1980 tot 1987 hoofdredacteur van het sterrenkundig tijdschrift Zenit, en was tot 1998 werkzaam als programmaleider bij het Artis Planetarium in Amsterdam.
Voor zijn werk op het gebied van de popularisering van de sterrenkunde ontving Govert diverse prijzen en onderscheidingen, waaronder de Simon Stevin-kijker van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Weer- en Sterrenkunde KNVWS (1989, samen met astronaut Wubbo Ockels), de Eureka-oeuvreprijs van de Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWO (2002) en de David N. Schramm Award van de High-Energy Astrophysics Division van de American Astronomical Society (2014). In 2007 werd planetoïde (10986) Govert naar hem genoemd door de Internationale Astronomische Unie (IAU); in 2021 is hij benoemd tot erelid van deze organisatie.
Govert Schilling is getrouwd, heeft een zoon en een dochter, en woont in Amersfoort.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
September 1, 2022
Excellent popular science book. If you’re heard about, and are curious about, Dark Matter in the astronomical/cosmological setting where it’s required as an explanation for several otherwise unexplainable phenomena then this is the book to read. No doubt in my mind about that.
I’ve an interest in astronomy and for 100 years astronomers have noted that there’s a mismatch between how much matter there is in galaxies as you’d estimate from counting the bright stars within it, and as you’d estimate from measuring how fast things move within and around the galaxy (as driven by its total mass and gravity). The nature of this mismatch and how the term ‘dark matter’ arose is discussed in detail, eventually suggesting that there’s a lot of matter around that we simply can’t either see or detect through standard methods.
At various times this mismatch estimate has changed in size but current estimates from different types of measurements indicate 5% of the universe is made up of the particles and atoms that we and the world are made from; 25% from Dark Matter, particles with mass but which don’t interact with us in many or even any other ways apart from via gravity; 70% from Dark Energy, a newly discovered (postulated?) substance that is a property of space and seems to be increasingly controlling the expansion of the universe.
High powered stuff and I must say I’m a bit uncertain about the ‘entry level requirements’ for reading this book. The author does explain concepts well, but it’s not a basics guide for someone with no science knowledge. Not a complete beginners guide. I’d say if you’re already a popular science reader and aren’t baffled by high/secondary school physics concepts, you vaguely know about the Big Bang and Black Holes, then you’ll manage fine.
The author is a journalist and usually starts each chapter on a new aspect of the story via meetings and interviews with leading scientists at laboratories scattered around the world. Unlike some books by journalists I’ve read this author doesn’t over indulge in scene setting at the locations, and doesn’t pad things out with long verbatim interview extracts. He keeps to the point - location descriptions of some of the remote observatories in mountainous regions, for example, are interesting; some hints at the rivalry, not always friendly, between completing research teams, and individuals, add some human interest to the story.
I didn’t get bored at any stage and I think I kept up with the explanations. I’ve not really analysed the structure of the book, but each chapter seemed to outline some new background to the mystery and the efforts to solve it.
In the end the author, like me, remains rather bemused that all the effort over 100 years, with increasingly sophisticated experiments, hasn’t found a clear trace of Dark Matter particles, or anything that might substitute for them (he covers well the theories that Dark Matter is an unneeded explanation, such as Modified Gravity). The author even finishes with some of the speculative exotic ideas that theorists love to throw into a vacuum of results, though the author does so without any enthusiasm that they’ll get anywhere! He’s quite happy to outline the possibilities that Research may be doomed to failure or is looking for the wrong thing. Though I think he does ultimately sympathise with the likelihood that there is Dark Matter of the type being looked for by most scientists - it’s just that we’ve got to try harder. I think I’d agree with that, but what do I know?!
I was so impressed by the book that I’ll look at the author’s back catalogue. I’ve not read his output before. In addition, I can be a little mean with my money and when I saw the cost of this new hardback I was hesitant to buy it, despite being keen to read it! But I’m now happy to say that I think I spent every penny wisely.
Best 5* popular science read in a long time.
I’ve an interest in astronomy and for 100 years astronomers have noted that there’s a mismatch between how much matter there is in galaxies as you’d estimate from counting the bright stars within it, and as you’d estimate from measuring how fast things move within and around the galaxy (as driven by its total mass and gravity). The nature of this mismatch and how the term ‘dark matter’ arose is discussed in detail, eventually suggesting that there’s a lot of matter around that we simply can’t either see or detect through standard methods.
At various times this mismatch estimate has changed in size but current estimates from different types of measurements indicate 5% of the universe is made up of the particles and atoms that we and the world are made from; 25% from Dark Matter, particles with mass but which don’t interact with us in many or even any other ways apart from via gravity; 70% from Dark Energy, a newly discovered (postulated?) substance that is a property of space and seems to be increasingly controlling the expansion of the universe.
High powered stuff and I must say I’m a bit uncertain about the ‘entry level requirements’ for reading this book. The author does explain concepts well, but it’s not a basics guide for someone with no science knowledge. Not a complete beginners guide. I’d say if you’re already a popular science reader and aren’t baffled by high/secondary school physics concepts, you vaguely know about the Big Bang and Black Holes, then you’ll manage fine.
The author is a journalist and usually starts each chapter on a new aspect of the story via meetings and interviews with leading scientists at laboratories scattered around the world. Unlike some books by journalists I’ve read this author doesn’t over indulge in scene setting at the locations, and doesn’t pad things out with long verbatim interview extracts. He keeps to the point - location descriptions of some of the remote observatories in mountainous regions, for example, are interesting; some hints at the rivalry, not always friendly, between completing research teams, and individuals, add some human interest to the story.
I didn’t get bored at any stage and I think I kept up with the explanations. I’ve not really analysed the structure of the book, but each chapter seemed to outline some new background to the mystery and the efforts to solve it.
In the end the author, like me, remains rather bemused that all the effort over 100 years, with increasingly sophisticated experiments, hasn’t found a clear trace of Dark Matter particles, or anything that might substitute for them (he covers well the theories that Dark Matter is an unneeded explanation, such as Modified Gravity). The author even finishes with some of the speculative exotic ideas that theorists love to throw into a vacuum of results, though the author does so without any enthusiasm that they’ll get anywhere! He’s quite happy to outline the possibilities that Research may be doomed to failure or is looking for the wrong thing. Though I think he does ultimately sympathise with the likelihood that there is Dark Matter of the type being looked for by most scientists - it’s just that we’ve got to try harder. I think I’d agree with that, but what do I know?!
I was so impressed by the book that I’ll look at the author’s back catalogue. I’ve not read his output before. In addition, I can be a little mean with my money and when I saw the cost of this new hardback I was hesitant to buy it, despite being keen to read it! But I’m now happy to say that I think I spent every penny wisely.
Best 5* popular science read in a long time.
December 6, 2022
Exemplary popular astrophysics book, the best popular-science book I've read so far this year. Author Schilling does almost everything right: his writing is crystal-clear. He repeats difficult material as he walks the reader through it. He's talked to most all of the active scientists in the field, and visited many of the experimental setups. Reading prerequisites: basic college-level physics. Some previous knowledge of the dark-matter & dark-energy problem would be helpful, but I think you would be OK with a lively interest in the area. The relevant Wikipedia articles I spot-checked make good to excellent backups.
WSJ review by cosmologist Katie Mack:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-elep...
(Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"... if you’re after a non-technical overview of why dark matter is so important and what we’ve been doing all this time to try to understand it, “The Elephant in the Universe” will fit the bill. What it will not and cannot do is provide a thrilling, climactic story arc or even a moderately satisfying conclusion. Dark matter is a fascinating mystery to wrestle with, but it is also deeply frustrating in its uncertainty and the seeming lack of progress toward an answer. Perhaps this really is the most apt representation of how science is done. We continue down the long hallway, trying one thing and trying another. We follow new leads or invent new ways to track down the old ones, and along the way we learn a little bit more about our universe. Cosmic afterthoughts that we are, it may just be the best we can do."
A good short review online: https://www.thespacereview.com/articl...
Start by reading this one.
From my notes:
Something close to our current notion of Dark Matter was first published in 1922, but the basic idea goes back to Lord Kelvin in the late 19th century. Dark Energy goes back Einstein's "cosmological constant" of 1917 (though he later disavowed it). Spoiler warning: despite a century of scientific effort, we have no real clue as to what either of these mean in physical terms, but most physicists and astronomers are pretty sure they really do exist! And a number of proposed explanations have been (tentatively) ruled out, by experiments, observations, or both. The amount of scientific effort and creativity applied to these problems are truly impressive. Work continues . . .
The basic notion of Dark Matter was worked out by astronomers observing that galaxies would be rotationally unstable if the only matter they contained was in their stars, nebulae, and dust. The early calculations weren't even close: there had to be far more matter than what astronomers could see or reasonably infer. The next step, many years later, was to work out the mass-energy distribution for our entire Universe just after the Big Bang. This came out to be:
Normal matter: 4.9%
Dark matter: 26.6%
Dark energy: 68.5% (by subtraction)
This distribution has also been worked out from current astronomical observations of the visible universe, an updating of the earlier 20th century work, and the numbers match the Big Bang calculations. Two independent lines of calculation that match closely, a reassuring result. If "reassuring" is the right adjective for this disconcerting observation!
WSJ review by cosmologist Katie Mack:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-elep...
(Paywalled. As always, I'm happy to email a copy to non-subscribers)
Excerpt:
"... if you’re after a non-technical overview of why dark matter is so important and what we’ve been doing all this time to try to understand it, “The Elephant in the Universe” will fit the bill. What it will not and cannot do is provide a thrilling, climactic story arc or even a moderately satisfying conclusion. Dark matter is a fascinating mystery to wrestle with, but it is also deeply frustrating in its uncertainty and the seeming lack of progress toward an answer. Perhaps this really is the most apt representation of how science is done. We continue down the long hallway, trying one thing and trying another. We follow new leads or invent new ways to track down the old ones, and along the way we learn a little bit more about our universe. Cosmic afterthoughts that we are, it may just be the best we can do."
A good short review online: https://www.thespacereview.com/articl...
Start by reading this one.
From my notes:
Something close to our current notion of Dark Matter was first published in 1922, but the basic idea goes back to Lord Kelvin in the late 19th century. Dark Energy goes back Einstein's "cosmological constant" of 1917 (though he later disavowed it). Spoiler warning: despite a century of scientific effort, we have no real clue as to what either of these mean in physical terms, but most physicists and astronomers are pretty sure they really do exist! And a number of proposed explanations have been (tentatively) ruled out, by experiments, observations, or both. The amount of scientific effort and creativity applied to these problems are truly impressive. Work continues . . .
The basic notion of Dark Matter was worked out by astronomers observing that galaxies would be rotationally unstable if the only matter they contained was in their stars, nebulae, and dust. The early calculations weren't even close: there had to be far more matter than what astronomers could see or reasonably infer. The next step, many years later, was to work out the mass-energy distribution for our entire Universe just after the Big Bang. This came out to be:
Normal matter: 4.9%
Dark matter: 26.6%
Dark energy: 68.5% (by subtraction)
This distribution has also been worked out from current astronomical observations of the visible universe, an updating of the earlier 20th century work, and the numbers match the Big Bang calculations. Two independent lines of calculation that match closely, a reassuring result. If "reassuring" is the right adjective for this disconcerting observation!
June 20, 2022
Great overview book on the history of dark matter research. A bit jargon heavy for a non physics buff but interesting content, great organization, and good writing. Know more about what dark matter is, what it means, and some of the models for what it might be.
January 12, 2023
"Dark matter challenges our imagination. Like some invisible glue, it is what holds the universe together and what makes it tick. Without it, galaxies would fall apart, galaxy clusters would dissolve, and space would have expanded into oblivion long ago. Dark matter is the most important stuff out there, yet we’ve only found out about it in recent decades, and no one has a clue as to its true nature..."
The Elephant in the Universe was a somewhat interesting look into the topic, but I found the writing a bit dry, and the book too long...
Author Govert Schilling is a Dutch popular science writer and amateur astronomer. In 1982, he became the program leader at the former Zeiss Planetarium, Amsterdam.
From 1987 to 1998 he was also a part-time appointee as a program leader at the Artis Planetarium in Amsterdam. He has also extensively written for the Sky & Telescope and Science magazines.
Govert Schilling:
The book opens with a decent foreword by Harvard Professor and author Avi Loeb. The book's scope is laid out in the introduction.
The author mentions that he intended each of the 25 chapters to be taken as a stand-alone work.
Schilling writes with a somewhat decent style; for the most part. Unfortunately, the subjects of dark matter and dark energy are inherently very technical and esoteric. So there are going to be intrinsic problems with covering such tricky source material in a way that will be both engaging as well as understandable to the layperson.
Dark matter is an elusive mystery. So what is it exactly? [SPOILER: No one knows. Well, FUCK] Schilling says:
The concept of dark matter was theorized a little while ago. Basically, the math that astrophysicists were calculating didn't add up. The author explains further:
And summarizes the theory for dark matter with this quote:
Unfortunately, I became frustrated with the writing as the book progressed. So, not only does no one know what dark matter actually is, there is some debate over whether it even exists at all. The author covers this ongoing debate in an almost blow-by-blow telling here.
Long-winded ponderings on esoteric theoretical physics that may or may not even be is just not my cup of tea. Although the book is 25 chapters and very long, it manages to actually say very little... Sadly, this all got a bit much for me. This is one of the reasons I don't appreciate books about theoretical physics as much as some others do.
***********************
The Elephant in the Universe was a decent look into the topic for those who are interested, but - as mentioned above; I found the writing to be dry and long-winded more often than not, and found my attention wandering numerous times... Likely a subjective thing; I am very particular about the tone and flow of the books I read, and my reviews are always heavily weighted towards this criteria.
Also, as mentioned at the start of this review - the book is very long. The audio version I have clocks in at over 11 hours.
I'm sorry to rate this one so low, as I feel the author tried his best with material that is inherently overly technical and uncertain, but my ratings need to reflect my personal enjoyment of the book. Sadly, for the reasons above, this one gets 2.5 stars (rounded up to 3) from me.
The Elephant in the Universe was a somewhat interesting look into the topic, but I found the writing a bit dry, and the book too long...
Author Govert Schilling is a Dutch popular science writer and amateur astronomer. In 1982, he became the program leader at the former Zeiss Planetarium, Amsterdam.
From 1987 to 1998 he was also a part-time appointee as a program leader at the Artis Planetarium in Amsterdam. He has also extensively written for the Sky & Telescope and Science magazines.
Govert Schilling:
The book opens with a decent foreword by Harvard Professor and author Avi Loeb. The book's scope is laid out in the introduction.
The author mentions that he intended each of the 25 chapters to be taken as a stand-alone work.
Schilling writes with a somewhat decent style; for the most part. Unfortunately, the subjects of dark matter and dark energy are inherently very technical and esoteric. So there are going to be intrinsic problems with covering such tricky source material in a way that will be both engaging as well as understandable to the layperson.
Dark matter is an elusive mystery. So what is it exactly? [SPOILER: No one knows. Well, FUCK] Schilling says:
"So when, in early 2018, I started seriously researching a new book on dark matter, I half-jokingly told the astrophysicists and particle physicists I was interviewing that I expected a revolutionary development in the field any day now. Wouldn’t it be great if my book were the first to report on the longawaited solution to the riddle of dark matter? The first to lay out what this mysterious stuff, said to constitute the balance of the cosmos, actually is?
Unfortunately, it didn’t happen. So here’s the spoiler: when you reach the last page of this book, you still won’t know what most of the material universe is made of. But neither do scientists. Despite decades of speculation, searching, studies, and simulations, dark matter remains one of the biggest enigmas of modern science. Still, after reading this book, you will have learned a lot about the miraculous universe we live in, and about the ways in which astronomers and physicists have teased out its secrets..."
The concept of dark matter was theorized a little while ago. Basically, the math that astrophysicists were calculating didn't add up. The author explains further:
"You can’t put a galaxy on a scale, but there are other ways to estimate their mass. Just look at how strongly they tug on their neighbors. Our Milky Way galaxy is surrounded by dwarf galaxies. The dimensions—and relatively sharp edges—of these satellites are governed by the interplay between their own internal gravity and the Milky Way’s mass. Elsewhere, the dynamics of small groups of galaxies and of galaxy pairs, orbiting each other, provide information on galaxy masses. And wherever you look, you see the same thing: evidence for much more mass than you would expect on the basis of the amount of light you’re seeing. Or, in the language of astrophysicists, a very high mass-to-light ratio."
And summarizes the theory for dark matter with this quote:
"As a quick recap, we’ve learned that galaxies can’t be stable, unless they’re embedded in giant, massive halos. Moreover, galaxies are much more massive than you would guess on the basis of their visible content. Rotational velocities do not decrease with increasing distance from the galaxy’s center but remain more or less constant—a sign that there is more matter in galaxies than is apparent through telescopes. The relative smoothness of the cosmic microwave background suggests that, in the moments after the big bang, weird particles must have already started to form a dark, massive scaffolding that would only later pull in the familiar baryonic matter. Finally, the big bang cannot have produced enough baryonic matter to explain the dynamical observations and the growth of cosmic structure, indicating that most of the gravitating mass in the universe must be in some unfamiliar, nonbaryonic form..."
Unfortunately, I became frustrated with the writing as the book progressed. So, not only does no one know what dark matter actually is, there is some debate over whether it even exists at all. The author covers this ongoing debate in an almost blow-by-blow telling here.
Long-winded ponderings on esoteric theoretical physics that may or may not even be is just not my cup of tea. Although the book is 25 chapters and very long, it manages to actually say very little... Sadly, this all got a bit much for me. This is one of the reasons I don't appreciate books about theoretical physics as much as some others do.
***********************
The Elephant in the Universe was a decent look into the topic for those who are interested, but - as mentioned above; I found the writing to be dry and long-winded more often than not, and found my attention wandering numerous times... Likely a subjective thing; I am very particular about the tone and flow of the books I read, and my reviews are always heavily weighted towards this criteria.
Also, as mentioned at the start of this review - the book is very long. The audio version I have clocks in at over 11 hours.
I'm sorry to rate this one so low, as I feel the author tried his best with material that is inherently overly technical and uncertain, but my ratings need to reflect my personal enjoyment of the book. Sadly, for the reasons above, this one gets 2.5 stars (rounded up to 3) from me.
July 2, 2022
I really enjoyed learning about dark matter in this book, though it wasn’t my favorite science book I’ve read. I couldn’t easily follow some of the concepts, and I’m not sure if that’s because the explanations were missing steps, or if the concepts themselves are just too convoluted for a non-physicist to keep up with. However, the vast majority of this book was wildly fascinating, and it helped codify a lot of concepts that I’d heard for years without taking the time to understand them; it also is pretty clear about the things on which scientists don’t agree and the things that are still a complete mystery, highlighting the fact that it really is a wild, wild world.
August 17, 2022
Like the best science books, this is just as much about what we know as how we know it, and as what we don't know. Schilling is especially good at describing problems in our cosmological models. The book is well written and engaging.
> the very first two-dimensional numerical simulations of rotating disk galaxies, published by astronomers Richard Miller, Kevin Prendergast, and Bill Quirk in 1970 and by Frank Hohl in 1971, showed just that: the initially circular disk turns into an elongated, bar-like structure, and the galaxy’s stars end up in wildly elliptical orbits—very different from the orderly circular motions observed in the Milky Way. With the help of Princeton’s Ed Groth, Peebles and Ostriker developed a program that would run on the university’s computer, while adding a third dimension to the simulations. Their results agreed very well with those of Miller, Prendergast, Quirk, and Hohl. As Ostriker and Peebles wrote in The Astrophysical Journal, “Axisymmetric, flat galaxies are grossly and irreversibly unstable.” … Spinning, low-mass galaxies are unstable; more mass would help. But if that additional mass is also located in the rotating disk, the galaxy would be just as unstable as before—after all, the simulations showed that it’s the disk shape itself that leads to instability. No, the extra mass needs to be distributed in a huge, more or less spherical halo, not taking part in the orderly rotation of the disk. … Later research has revealed that large, random stellar motions in the cores of galaxies can also stabilize flat, rotating disks
> The Andromeda galaxy may be the Milky Way’s nearest large neighbor, but it’s still 2.5 million light-years away. At that distance, it was flat-out impossible to record the spectrum of an individual star, even with Ford’s powerful device. Instead the two astronomers focused on so-called HII regions (pronounced aitch two): luminous clouds of hot, ionized hydrogen gas, akin to the famous Orion Nebula, but much larger. These, too, orbit a galaxy’s center at velocities determined by the total mass within their paths.
> Between 1971 and 1973, Shostak and his thesis advisor David Rogstad, who had moved to Groningen in the Netherlands to work with the new Westerbork telescope, published papers on a total of six galaxies, including NGC 2403, M101 (also known as the Pinwheel galaxy), and M33—the third major member of the so-called Local Group, to which our Milky Way and Andromeda belong. In each case, they found that clouds of cold hydrogen gas way beyond the optical edge of the galaxy were rotating much faster than expected, indicating the presence of “low-luminosity material in the outer regions of these galaxies,” as they wrote in a September 1972 paper in The Astrophysical Journal. Meanwhile, NRAO astronomer Morton Roberts was studying neutral hydrogen in the Andromeda galaxy, using the then-largest radio telescope in the world—the Green Bank Telescope, which had become operational in 1962. Improving on the pioneering Dwingeloo observations by van de Hulst, Raimond, and van Woerden, Roberts published his first results in 1966—just one year after Vera Rubin started to share an office with Kent Ford at Carnegie’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism
> Whether or not Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard were also aware of the work by Rogstad and Shostak remains unclear—the trio did not reference it in their 1978 and 1980 publications. But Shostak just can’t imagine they didn’t know about it. “In 1972, thanks to Mort Roberts, I had a postdoc job at NRAO,” he says. “One of the summer students there was Vera’s twenty-year-old daughter Judy, who would later become an astronomer herself. I’m sure she must have discussed our work with her mother. Vera didn’t have flat rotation curves until a couple of years later; we had done it years before.”
> It all seemed to confirm the earlier, less precise, and less sensitive results of Rogstad and Shostak and of Roberts and Whitehurst. Eventually, no fewer than twenty-five galaxies turned out to have flat rotation curves out to very large distances from their cores, indicating the presence of large amounts of invisible mass way beyond the optical disk. Bosma presented initial results at conferences in 1976 and 1977, but the full extent of his work only became clear with the publication of his 1978 dissertation “The Distribution and Kinematics of Neutral Hydrogen in Spiral Galaxies of Various Morphological Types.” Later that year, Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard described their results for just ten galaxies, based on optical observations. So, is Albert Bosma frustrated?
> “It’s true that Vera came late to the party. All that talk about a Nobel Prize, and now a large telescope being named after her … it makes you feel kind of strange.” Then again, he adds, she never claimed priority herself. Indeed, as I have noted before, Bosma’s thesis is referenced in the 1980 publication by Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard. And in their 1978 paper, the authors make clear that “Mort Roberts and his collaborators deserve credit for first calling attention to flat rotation curves.” … Sandra Faber, who later became a distinguished professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, believes that—contrary to what is usually the case—Rubin’s current record in history has actually been helped by the fact that she was a woman. It is a remarkable example of reverse gender inequality. “Bosma’s thesis is brilliant. Two hundred years from now,” she muses, “people will certainly realize how important his contributions have been.”
> In 1987 and 1988, they published three more papers—two in The Astrophysical Journal and one in Nature—in which they expanded on their earlier work. Taken together, the Gang’s five landmark publications—collectively known as the DEFW papers, for Davis, Efstathiou, Frenk, and White—firmly put nonbaryonic cold dark matter on the map as the sole candidate for the major constituent of the universe. CDM appeared to be able to explain just about everything.
> Observe hundreds (or thousands, or even millions) of faint background galaxies. Check for departures from random orientations. Use these departures to map the strength of the weak lensing effect that’s responsible for the minute distortions. Then derive the corresponding mass distribution in the foreground. Presto: you’ve just arrived at a mass map of part of the universe. And since most of the universe’s gravitating mass is dark matter, the map you’ve produced basically charts the dark matter along the line of sight—a feat first achieved (albeit with rather poor accuracy) by Anthony Tyson of AT&T Bell Laboratories and his colleagues in 1984.
> Luckily there are ways to make the distinction between microlensing and other sources of nonperiodic variation. One key characteristic of a microlensing event is the perfectly symmetrical shape of its light curve—the graph showing how brightness varies with time. If a star brightens at one rate and then dims at another, microlensing cannot be the cause. And there’s another important clue. An intrinsically variable star usually changes color, however subtly, because its surface temperature rises and falls. The result is that the star’s behavior as seen through a red filter is slightly different from what is seen through a blue filter. In contrast, microlensing events are expected to be “achromatic”: red light is amplified in exactly the same way as blue light
> within a couple of years, Aubourg and his coauthors had to retract each of their claims, much to their disappointment. Follow-up observations revealed that both of their suspect stars were weird variables after all, with long quiescent periods and occasional brightness changes that had all the symmetric and achromatic characteristics of microlensing events.
> Sixty satellite dwarfs swarming around the Milky Way may sound like a lot, but theorists predict there should be at least five hundred. And it’s not that astronomers haven’t searched hard enough. The current surveys should really have turned up many, many more. It’s called the missing-satellite problem,
> real dwarf galaxies do not show these prominent density cusps at their cores. The dark matter distribution, as derived from velocity observations, is always much flatter. This third mismatch between ΛCDM simulations and the real universe is called the core-cusp problem, or the cuspy halo problem
> Detailed supercomputer simulations of the growth of cosmic structure, like IllustrisTNG and EAGLE, show how large galaxies like our Milky Way end up being surrounded on all sides by huge numbers of dark matter subhalos, which become visible as dwarf galaxies. In the real universe, however, the dwarf companions are not only too few in number; they also do not surround their host galaxy equally in every direction. Instead, the majority of satellite galaxies are found in a flattened disk, which does not coincide with the central plane of the host. No matter how computational astrophysicists tweak their code, they are not able to reproduce this distribution in their simulations. It’s known as the planes-of-satellite-galaxies problem.
> the light from a remote quasar can be split into multiple images by the gravity of a massive foreground object, such as a huge elliptical galaxy. Importantly, brightness changes in the lensed quasar arrive at Earth at different moments, because each light path has its own associated travel time. So if one quasar image exhibits a certain pattern of flickers, the same pattern will be observed in another image of the same quasar with a delay of (usually) a couple of months. From this time delay—and a precise model of the mass distribution of the foreground lens—it is possible to calculate the distances traveled. Combining this with redshift measurements yields a value for the Hubble constant to a precision of a few percent. The international H0LiCOW project led by Suyu (H 0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL’s Wellspring) kept track of brightness variations in six gravitationally lensed quasars to arrive at a value for the Hubble constant of 73.3 km / s / Mpc, with a precision of 2.4 percent—in almost perfect agreement with the SH0ES value
> How, then, to make sense of the divergence over the Hubble constant? Is it around 74.0 km / s / Mpc, as Riess, Suyu, and others have found, or is it 67.4 km / s / Mpc, as indicated by the cosmic back ground radiation?
> the results so far seem to indicate that cosmic matter is distributed more homogeneously than expected. Cosmologists use the parameter S 8 as a measure of the “lumpiness” of the universe, and the value of S 8 as measured by KiDS and DES (somewhere between 0.76 and 0.78) is some 8 percent lower than the value predicted from Planck’s observations of the cosmic microwave background (0.83). This significant discrepancy is known as the S 8 tension
> the very first two-dimensional numerical simulations of rotating disk galaxies, published by astronomers Richard Miller, Kevin Prendergast, and Bill Quirk in 1970 and by Frank Hohl in 1971, showed just that: the initially circular disk turns into an elongated, bar-like structure, and the galaxy’s stars end up in wildly elliptical orbits—very different from the orderly circular motions observed in the Milky Way. With the help of Princeton’s Ed Groth, Peebles and Ostriker developed a program that would run on the university’s computer, while adding a third dimension to the simulations. Their results agreed very well with those of Miller, Prendergast, Quirk, and Hohl. As Ostriker and Peebles wrote in The Astrophysical Journal, “Axisymmetric, flat galaxies are grossly and irreversibly unstable.” … Spinning, low-mass galaxies are unstable; more mass would help. But if that additional mass is also located in the rotating disk, the galaxy would be just as unstable as before—after all, the simulations showed that it’s the disk shape itself that leads to instability. No, the extra mass needs to be distributed in a huge, more or less spherical halo, not taking part in the orderly rotation of the disk. … Later research has revealed that large, random stellar motions in the cores of galaxies can also stabilize flat, rotating disks
> The Andromeda galaxy may be the Milky Way’s nearest large neighbor, but it’s still 2.5 million light-years away. At that distance, it was flat-out impossible to record the spectrum of an individual star, even with Ford’s powerful device. Instead the two astronomers focused on so-called HII regions (pronounced aitch two): luminous clouds of hot, ionized hydrogen gas, akin to the famous Orion Nebula, but much larger. These, too, orbit a galaxy’s center at velocities determined by the total mass within their paths.
> Between 1971 and 1973, Shostak and his thesis advisor David Rogstad, who had moved to Groningen in the Netherlands to work with the new Westerbork telescope, published papers on a total of six galaxies, including NGC 2403, M101 (also known as the Pinwheel galaxy), and M33—the third major member of the so-called Local Group, to which our Milky Way and Andromeda belong. In each case, they found that clouds of cold hydrogen gas way beyond the optical edge of the galaxy were rotating much faster than expected, indicating the presence of “low-luminosity material in the outer regions of these galaxies,” as they wrote in a September 1972 paper in The Astrophysical Journal. Meanwhile, NRAO astronomer Morton Roberts was studying neutral hydrogen in the Andromeda galaxy, using the then-largest radio telescope in the world—the Green Bank Telescope, which had become operational in 1962. Improving on the pioneering Dwingeloo observations by van de Hulst, Raimond, and van Woerden, Roberts published his first results in 1966—just one year after Vera Rubin started to share an office with Kent Ford at Carnegie’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism
> Whether or not Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard were also aware of the work by Rogstad and Shostak remains unclear—the trio did not reference it in their 1978 and 1980 publications. But Shostak just can’t imagine they didn’t know about it. “In 1972, thanks to Mort Roberts, I had a postdoc job at NRAO,” he says. “One of the summer students there was Vera’s twenty-year-old daughter Judy, who would later become an astronomer herself. I’m sure she must have discussed our work with her mother. Vera didn’t have flat rotation curves until a couple of years later; we had done it years before.”
> It all seemed to confirm the earlier, less precise, and less sensitive results of Rogstad and Shostak and of Roberts and Whitehurst. Eventually, no fewer than twenty-five galaxies turned out to have flat rotation curves out to very large distances from their cores, indicating the presence of large amounts of invisible mass way beyond the optical disk. Bosma presented initial results at conferences in 1976 and 1977, but the full extent of his work only became clear with the publication of his 1978 dissertation “The Distribution and Kinematics of Neutral Hydrogen in Spiral Galaxies of Various Morphological Types.” Later that year, Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard described their results for just ten galaxies, based on optical observations. So, is Albert Bosma frustrated?
> “It’s true that Vera came late to the party. All that talk about a Nobel Prize, and now a large telescope being named after her … it makes you feel kind of strange.” Then again, he adds, she never claimed priority herself. Indeed, as I have noted before, Bosma’s thesis is referenced in the 1980 publication by Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard. And in their 1978 paper, the authors make clear that “Mort Roberts and his collaborators deserve credit for first calling attention to flat rotation curves.” … Sandra Faber, who later became a distinguished professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, believes that—contrary to what is usually the case—Rubin’s current record in history has actually been helped by the fact that she was a woman. It is a remarkable example of reverse gender inequality. “Bosma’s thesis is brilliant. Two hundred years from now,” she muses, “people will certainly realize how important his contributions have been.”
> In 1987 and 1988, they published three more papers—two in The Astrophysical Journal and one in Nature—in which they expanded on their earlier work. Taken together, the Gang’s five landmark publications—collectively known as the DEFW papers, for Davis, Efstathiou, Frenk, and White—firmly put nonbaryonic cold dark matter on the map as the sole candidate for the major constituent of the universe. CDM appeared to be able to explain just about everything.
> Observe hundreds (or thousands, or even millions) of faint background galaxies. Check for departures from random orientations. Use these departures to map the strength of the weak lensing effect that’s responsible for the minute distortions. Then derive the corresponding mass distribution in the foreground. Presto: you’ve just arrived at a mass map of part of the universe. And since most of the universe’s gravitating mass is dark matter, the map you’ve produced basically charts the dark matter along the line of sight—a feat first achieved (albeit with rather poor accuracy) by Anthony Tyson of AT&T Bell Laboratories and his colleagues in 1984.
> Luckily there are ways to make the distinction between microlensing and other sources of nonperiodic variation. One key characteristic of a microlensing event is the perfectly symmetrical shape of its light curve—the graph showing how brightness varies with time. If a star brightens at one rate and then dims at another, microlensing cannot be the cause. And there’s another important clue. An intrinsically variable star usually changes color, however subtly, because its surface temperature rises and falls. The result is that the star’s behavior as seen through a red filter is slightly different from what is seen through a blue filter. In contrast, microlensing events are expected to be “achromatic”: red light is amplified in exactly the same way as blue light
> within a couple of years, Aubourg and his coauthors had to retract each of their claims, much to their disappointment. Follow-up observations revealed that both of their suspect stars were weird variables after all, with long quiescent periods and occasional brightness changes that had all the symmetric and achromatic characteristics of microlensing events.
> Sixty satellite dwarfs swarming around the Milky Way may sound like a lot, but theorists predict there should be at least five hundred. And it’s not that astronomers haven’t searched hard enough. The current surveys should really have turned up many, many more. It’s called the missing-satellite problem,
> real dwarf galaxies do not show these prominent density cusps at their cores. The dark matter distribution, as derived from velocity observations, is always much flatter. This third mismatch between ΛCDM simulations and the real universe is called the core-cusp problem, or the cuspy halo problem
> Detailed supercomputer simulations of the growth of cosmic structure, like IllustrisTNG and EAGLE, show how large galaxies like our Milky Way end up being surrounded on all sides by huge numbers of dark matter subhalos, which become visible as dwarf galaxies. In the real universe, however, the dwarf companions are not only too few in number; they also do not surround their host galaxy equally in every direction. Instead, the majority of satellite galaxies are found in a flattened disk, which does not coincide with the central plane of the host. No matter how computational astrophysicists tweak their code, they are not able to reproduce this distribution in their simulations. It’s known as the planes-of-satellite-galaxies problem.
> the light from a remote quasar can be split into multiple images by the gravity of a massive foreground object, such as a huge elliptical galaxy. Importantly, brightness changes in the lensed quasar arrive at Earth at different moments, because each light path has its own associated travel time. So if one quasar image exhibits a certain pattern of flickers, the same pattern will be observed in another image of the same quasar with a delay of (usually) a couple of months. From this time delay—and a precise model of the mass distribution of the foreground lens—it is possible to calculate the distances traveled. Combining this with redshift measurements yields a value for the Hubble constant to a precision of a few percent. The international H0LiCOW project led by Suyu (H 0 Lenses in COSMOGRAIL’s Wellspring) kept track of brightness variations in six gravitationally lensed quasars to arrive at a value for the Hubble constant of 73.3 km / s / Mpc, with a precision of 2.4 percent—in almost perfect agreement with the SH0ES value
> How, then, to make sense of the divergence over the Hubble constant? Is it around 74.0 km / s / Mpc, as Riess, Suyu, and others have found, or is it 67.4 km / s / Mpc, as indicated by the cosmic back ground radiation?
> the results so far seem to indicate that cosmic matter is distributed more homogeneously than expected. Cosmologists use the parameter S 8 as a measure of the “lumpiness” of the universe, and the value of S 8 as measured by KiDS and DES (somewhere between 0.76 and 0.78) is some 8 percent lower than the value predicted from Planck’s observations of the cosmic microwave background (0.83). This significant discrepancy is known as the S 8 tension
May 2, 2025
This was a gas. Or maybe a superfluid. Either way, something about the way it was written made dark matter feel potentially real to me, not just theoretical. And it had plenty of information I didn’t already know.
I’m giving it my fifth precious star because part of this book gave me a ride down memory lane. I spent some time on the independent time step method for hydrodynamics and did my thesis on parallelizing it for linear speed up. I also did graphical simulations of dynamical systems. This was in the mid-80s. So reading about similar work was extra fun. But gee, I got to use all the new supercomputers and parallel computers through grants and work with LANL and LLNL. I pity the poor guys who were stuck with VAXes.
One nit: Why spend so many pages to gripe about Vera Rubin. Just let it go.
One bit of irony: the author talks about the Covid pandemic and how wonderful it was to finally get a vaccine and immediately quotes Robert Kennedy (Sr). Sigh.
I’m giving it my fifth precious star because part of this book gave me a ride down memory lane. I spent some time on the independent time step method for hydrodynamics and did my thesis on parallelizing it for linear speed up. I also did graphical simulations of dynamical systems. This was in the mid-80s. So reading about similar work was extra fun. But gee, I got to use all the new supercomputers and parallel computers through grants and work with LANL and LLNL. I pity the poor guys who were stuck with VAXes.
One nit: Why spend so many pages to gripe about Vera Rubin. Just let it go.
One bit of irony: the author talks about the Covid pandemic and how wonderful it was to finally get a vaccine and immediately quotes Robert Kennedy (Sr). Sigh.
August 5, 2025
Ik las recent Thomas Hertogs 'Ontstaan van de Tijd', dat probeerde om moeilijke theoretische concepten uit de kosmologie te verduidelijken voor leken. Wat mij betreft was Hertog niet gelukt in zijn opzet: onhandig geschreven, nogal egocentrisch en behoorlijk onduidelijk in het uitleggen van heel speculatieve, filosofische ideeën.
Wat een verademing om nu dit heerlijke boek te lezen. Govert Schilling is een Nederlandse wetenschapsjournalist die voor de research van dit boek de wereld is rondgereisd om fysica-experimenten te bezoeken en topfysici te interviewen. Maar hij is er dan nog eens in geslaagd om dit in een vlot leesbaar en verduidelijkend boek te gieten dat een mooi overzicht geeft van een bijzonder belangrijk topic in de huidige fysica.
Vermoedelijk zal dit boek binnen een tiental jaar volledig achterhaald zijn door de resultaten van experimenten die Schilling beschrijft, maar intussen is dit een ideale manier om meer te weten komen over de richtingen die het onderzoek naar donkere materie inslaat.
Spoiler: ze weten nog altijd niet waaruit donkere materie bestaat. En zelfs niet of ze bestaat.
Wat een verademing om nu dit heerlijke boek te lezen. Govert Schilling is een Nederlandse wetenschapsjournalist die voor de research van dit boek de wereld is rondgereisd om fysica-experimenten te bezoeken en topfysici te interviewen. Maar hij is er dan nog eens in geslaagd om dit in een vlot leesbaar en verduidelijkend boek te gieten dat een mooi overzicht geeft van een bijzonder belangrijk topic in de huidige fysica.
Vermoedelijk zal dit boek binnen een tiental jaar volledig achterhaald zijn door de resultaten van experimenten die Schilling beschrijft, maar intussen is dit een ideale manier om meer te weten komen over de richtingen die het onderzoek naar donkere materie inslaat.
Spoiler: ze weten nog altijd niet waaruit donkere materie bestaat. En zelfs niet of ze bestaat.
March 25, 2023
Liked how the book was divided into short, mostly self-contained chapters, which made it quite digestible for the most part. I enjoyed learning the interplay between astronomical observations and theories to try and explained them. I felt that there should had been more explanation on why DAMA is not being transparent. It didn't seem like the author question this as much as he could have.
March 1, 2023
This was a disappointing book. A good science book should be more than just a bunch of interviews and reviews of important papers/work. There should be a narrative there and some overarching interpretation from the author. Ed Yong is a good example of this kind of writing. This book is not that, at least most of the time. While I certainly did get insight into dark matter and the search for it, I ended up skimming big parts of the book. They just weren't very interesting. If you're looking to really understand dark matter this really isn't the book for you. But it is a good representative story of how big science works, how it is funded, and the kinds of characters in the story.
October 12, 2024
OVERVIEW: "The Elephant in the Universe: Our Hundred-Year Search for Dark Matter" by Govert Schilling, published in 2022 and narrated by Joel Richards, is a fascinating exploration of one of the most elusive mysteries in modern astronomy: dark matter. Schilling, an award-winning science journalist, takes listeners on a journey through the history of the search for dark matter, detailing the scientific breakthroughs and the ongoing quest to understand this enigmatic substance that makes up about 85% of the universe's mass.
NARRATION: Joel Richards' narration is a standout feature of this audiobook. His clear, engaging voice brings Schilling's complex scientific explanations to life, making them accessible to a broad audience. Richards' ability to convey the excitement and frustration of the scientists involved in the search for dark matter adds depth to the narrative, keeping listeners hooked from start to finish.
CONTENT AND STRUCTURE: Schilling's writing is both informative and engaging. He begins by explaining the basics of dark matter and why it is so crucial to our understanding of the universe. He then delves into the history of the search for dark matter, starting with early 20th-century astronomers who first proposed its existence. The audiobook covers key discoveries and experiments, including the work of Vera Rubin, whose observations of galaxy rotation curves provided strong evidence for dark matter.
Schilling also discusses the various theories and models that have been proposed to explain dark matter, from WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) to axions and other exotic particles. He highlights the challenges and limitations of current detection methods, as well as the innovative approaches scientists are taking to try to capture evidence of dark matter.
THEMES AND INSIGHTS: One of the central themes of the audiobook is the perseverance and ingenuity of scientists in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. Schilling emphasizes the collaborative nature of scientific research and the importance of questioning established theories. He also explores the broader implications of understanding dark matter, including its potential impact on our knowledge of the universe's origins and future.
PERSONAL REFLECTION: As a listener, I found "The Elephant in the Universe" to be a captivating and enlightening experience. Schilling's ability to break down complex scientific concepts into digestible pieces, combined with Richards' compelling narration, made the audiobook both educational and entertaining. The story of the search for dark matter is a testament to human curiosity and the relentless pursuit of knowledge.
CONCLUSION: In summary, "The Elephant in the Universe" by Govert Schilling, narrated by Joel Richards, is a must-listen for anyone interested in the mysteries of the cosmos. Schilling's thorough research and engaging storytelling, combined with Richards' excellent narration, create an immersive and thought-provoking experience. Whether you're a seasoned astronomer or a curious novice, this audiobook offers a deep dive into one of the most intriguing scientific quests of our time.
BONUS: EXCITING DEVELOPMENTS
There have been some exciting developments in dark matter research recently. Here are a few highlights:
1. LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment: The world's most sensitive dark matter detector, LUX-ZEPLIN, has set a new record by putting the best-ever limits on particles called WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), a leading candidate for dark matter. This experiment, led by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is conducted in a cavern nearly one mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota.
2. BREAD Experiment: The Broadband Reflector Experiment for Axion Detection (BREAD) has delivered its first results. While it hasn't detected dark matter particles yet, the experiment is designed to search the cosmos for dark matter using innovative methods.
3. New Theories and Methods: Physicists at the Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory are proposing new ways to search for dark matter using quantum devices, which might be naturally tuned to detect what researchers call thermalized dark matter.
4. Challenging Current Models: A recent study from the University of Ottawa challenges the current theoretical model of the universe by suggesting that it might have no room for dark matter. This study, published in The Astrophysical Journal, proposes that the universe is made up of normal matter, dark energy, and no dark matter.
These advancements show that the search for dark matter is ongoing and evolving, with scientists exploring new methods and theories to uncover the mysteries of this elusive substance.
NARRATION: Joel Richards' narration is a standout feature of this audiobook. His clear, engaging voice brings Schilling's complex scientific explanations to life, making them accessible to a broad audience. Richards' ability to convey the excitement and frustration of the scientists involved in the search for dark matter adds depth to the narrative, keeping listeners hooked from start to finish.
CONTENT AND STRUCTURE: Schilling's writing is both informative and engaging. He begins by explaining the basics of dark matter and why it is so crucial to our understanding of the universe. He then delves into the history of the search for dark matter, starting with early 20th-century astronomers who first proposed its existence. The audiobook covers key discoveries and experiments, including the work of Vera Rubin, whose observations of galaxy rotation curves provided strong evidence for dark matter.
Schilling also discusses the various theories and models that have been proposed to explain dark matter, from WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) to axions and other exotic particles. He highlights the challenges and limitations of current detection methods, as well as the innovative approaches scientists are taking to try to capture evidence of dark matter.
THEMES AND INSIGHTS: One of the central themes of the audiobook is the perseverance and ingenuity of scientists in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. Schilling emphasizes the collaborative nature of scientific research and the importance of questioning established theories. He also explores the broader implications of understanding dark matter, including its potential impact on our knowledge of the universe's origins and future.
PERSONAL REFLECTION: As a listener, I found "The Elephant in the Universe" to be a captivating and enlightening experience. Schilling's ability to break down complex scientific concepts into digestible pieces, combined with Richards' compelling narration, made the audiobook both educational and entertaining. The story of the search for dark matter is a testament to human curiosity and the relentless pursuit of knowledge.
CONCLUSION: In summary, "The Elephant in the Universe" by Govert Schilling, narrated by Joel Richards, is a must-listen for anyone interested in the mysteries of the cosmos. Schilling's thorough research and engaging storytelling, combined with Richards' excellent narration, create an immersive and thought-provoking experience. Whether you're a seasoned astronomer or a curious novice, this audiobook offers a deep dive into one of the most intriguing scientific quests of our time.
BONUS: EXCITING DEVELOPMENTS
There have been some exciting developments in dark matter research recently. Here are a few highlights:
1. LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment: The world's most sensitive dark matter detector, LUX-ZEPLIN, has set a new record by putting the best-ever limits on particles called WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), a leading candidate for dark matter. This experiment, led by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is conducted in a cavern nearly one mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota.
2. BREAD Experiment: The Broadband Reflector Experiment for Axion Detection (BREAD) has delivered its first results. While it hasn't detected dark matter particles yet, the experiment is designed to search the cosmos for dark matter using innovative methods.
3. New Theories and Methods: Physicists at the Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory are proposing new ways to search for dark matter using quantum devices, which might be naturally tuned to detect what researchers call thermalized dark matter.
4. Challenging Current Models: A recent study from the University of Ottawa challenges the current theoretical model of the universe by suggesting that it might have no room for dark matter. This study, published in The Astrophysical Journal, proposes that the universe is made up of normal matter, dark energy, and no dark matter.
These advancements show that the search for dark matter is ongoing and evolving, with scientists exploring new methods and theories to uncover the mysteries of this elusive substance.
July 10, 2024
As the introduction said you start without knowing anything and end with the same. Seems that scientists are playing piñata trying to hit the target with even wilder theories and bigger and cleaver technologies. Maybe technological development profits from this even if they fail to find something while keeping part of the world population busy in the hope of finding something...instead of focusing on real problems like climate change, species extinctions, etc., or more efficient energy, but as I said meanwhile by change they find something useful that would help.
The book is well-written by a popular science journalist so don't hope for scientific detail explanations is more or less a journal chronic of the current Dark Matter state, easy to read in a couple of days just to have something to discuss with your friends over a drink.
I could easily say that many world theories are correct since is not black matter that controls galactic speed anomaly but other worlds interacting with our world with galaxies located in the same place but as constant in the other worlds are different masses are different and interaction from another world are little but noticeable...how about that theory? Is as valid as dark matter given the current state right?
Another book that I read and recommend, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs: The Astounding Interconnectedness of the Universe. Is funny how scientists are so cleavers and could waste their time and our money with theories without having any at hand just a computer and a lot of imagination. Like string theory, dark matter is beyond any need to test against reality...
The book is well-written by a popular science journalist so don't hope for scientific detail explanations is more or less a journal chronic of the current Dark Matter state, easy to read in a couple of days just to have something to discuss with your friends over a drink.
I could easily say that many world theories are correct since is not black matter that controls galactic speed anomaly but other worlds interacting with our world with galaxies located in the same place but as constant in the other worlds are different masses are different and interaction from another world are little but noticeable...how about that theory? Is as valid as dark matter given the current state right?
Another book that I read and recommend, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs: The Astounding Interconnectedness of the Universe. Is funny how scientists are so cleavers and could waste their time and our money with theories without having any at hand just a computer and a lot of imagination. Like string theory, dark matter is beyond any need to test against reality...
April 5, 2024
Astrophysicists determined that there is too much gravity in the universe than can be accounted for by "normal" matter.
They've hypothesized there must something out there that exerts a lot of gravity, but doesn't show signs of exerting any of the other three fundamental forces of nature. They've called this something "dark matter".
Despite searching and trying to detect this "dark matter" for decades, they've been unsuccessful in demonstrating what it is.
Is it possible that they've taken a wrong turn and there might be another explanation for this unexplained extra gravity? For example, maybe gravity works slightly differently at very large distance scales and over very long time periods?
Anyway, interesting book about the search for "dark matter". It would be nice if one of the many experiments described in the book bore fruit and came up with a definitive answer - one way or the other.
They've hypothesized there must something out there that exerts a lot of gravity, but doesn't show signs of exerting any of the other three fundamental forces of nature. They've called this something "dark matter".
Despite searching and trying to detect this "dark matter" for decades, they've been unsuccessful in demonstrating what it is.
Is it possible that they've taken a wrong turn and there might be another explanation for this unexplained extra gravity? For example, maybe gravity works slightly differently at very large distance scales and over very long time periods?
Anyway, interesting book about the search for "dark matter". It would be nice if one of the many experiments described in the book bore fruit and came up with a definitive answer - one way or the other.
February 23, 2023
The physics is theoretical, but the phun is missing. Theoretical physics just isn't my thing, especially when it has failed to predict correctly for so long. I do think that I understand the curvature of the universe problem now. I do want to learn a lot more about MoND theory and why the Bullet Cluster is claimed to be the nail in the coffin. Feelings are not science, but it feels to me like we are ready for a paradigm shift - like it's time to stop believing in the aether after so many experiments failed to find it. I did learn some, but with so many acronyms and so many experiments that are trying but have failed to find what they're looking for, it began to run together and seem like a pointless venture.
November 12, 2025
I've been looking for this book for a long time and finally found it. We go on thinking we understand the universe well and understand the big bang well, but we don't. Over 95% of the universe is dark energy and dark matter. Something we know little about. Only about 5% is the ordinary (baryonic) matter we normally talk about. This seems crazy to me that there aren't more headlines out there talking about how little we understand the universe. This book does a good job of highlighting the elephant in the universe. It gives some of the latest ideas on dark energy and dark matter. It also highlights we are just guessing on what they might be. This is fascinating science. Maybe an AI will be able to figure it out shortly. ;)
September 21, 2024
A thoroughly mediocre book. I've read others about modern physics that are much more enjoyable and informative. This author is too cutesy and illogical. Still, it's not terrible, just average.
I think the conclusion is the best demonstration. After an entire book talking about how there's no direct evidence for dark matter, and there are theories that are young but where it's not needed, he finishes with "Dark matter governs our universe" after he just explained it doesn't because we can't prove it exists. Dark matter governs the vast majority of physicists' theories. That's it.
I think the conclusion is the best demonstration. After an entire book talking about how there's no direct evidence for dark matter, and there are theories that are young but where it's not needed, he finishes with "Dark matter governs our universe" after he just explained it doesn't because we can't prove it exists. Dark matter governs the vast majority of physicists' theories. That's it.
October 10, 2025
If you wanted to know about the last 100 years of science's search for dark matter in space, including what the future might look like, this is the book for you. Covering deep and sometimes esoteric science, this actually is a fairly easy read, not as dense as you would expect. The author's passion for the work is evident in an almost giddy narration of past and current events and discoveries. Really fascinating stuff contained in here.
November 8, 2023
This isn’t a straightforward history, more like a travelog with lots of history. I really liked it! It's not confusing (a la The Mission) and is pretty clear to boot. Unfortunately, I had trouble with zoning out.
August 22, 2024
A super interesting, well written and researched book! I'm still quite new to these topics so some parts were a little difficult to understand. Despite this, I never got completely lost in this book and could often quickly pick up the thread. Overall a great read!
March 3, 2025
Long and detailed about tue quest for clarity on dark matter and how universe is built and the ecosystem of stars.
Can't wait to read a sequel Elephant 2 in let's say 50years to see how the story continue
Can't wait to read a sequel Elephant 2 in let's say 50years to see how the story continue
August 9, 2022
The writing's a bit pompous, but it's fun. The subject is entertaining. The narrative is pleasant. It's accessible.
November 29, 2022
Great overview of the history and current status of the investigation of dark matter and dark energy,
June 18, 2023
Brings you up to date on the latest with dark matter, dark energy, search for WIMPS, etc. But I thought the writing was not as clear and precise as I expected.
June 20, 2023
A fascinating read that continues to stay with me weeks after I've read it. Helps to understand how small a place we occupy in the universe and how little we actually understand about it.
July 16, 2023
Nice review of the origins of dark matter theory, the history of its attempted detection, and the current state of the hunt. Bogs down a bit in places with excessive detail, but a fun read overall.
March 31, 2024
It's an excellent review for dark matter and I have learnt a lot from it. The author is not a scientist so the book is not technical but no subject has been left behind.
April 4, 2024
Excellent but super dense despite the authors best efforts
May 4, 2024
The author certainly put a lot of work into this. One major annoyance: constantly referring to later chapters
March 17, 2025
It's truly both frightening and inspiring the extent to which we do not know about the universe in which we live. A very interesting subject albeit a little dry and abstract for me at times.
December 3, 2022
I leaned a lot about what we know (and don't know) about Dark Matter and how we know what we know/don't know. I do find it funny that like every three chapters someone says Dark Matter is Neutrinos again, and we gotta debunk it again.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews